Miller v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County

Filing 55

ORDER denying Defendant's 49 Motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of judgment amount and an order of dismissal. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

MARTA MILLER,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C15-2027-JCC

BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY,

13
Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish
County’s motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of judgment amount and an order of
dismissal (Dkt. No. 49). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant
record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the
reasons explained herein.
The Court detailed the facts of this case in its order on Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. (See Dkt. No. 39 at 1–6.) On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Marta Miller filed a timely
notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment. (Dkt. No. 47.) However, before the Clerk entered a
judgment, Defendant filed this current motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of
judgment and an order of dismissal. (Dkt. No. 49.) Defendant argues a judgment is not necessary
at this time because it has satisfied its payment obligations. (See Dkt. No. 50-1.)

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, if a party accepts an offer within fourteen

2

days of receipt and files a notice of acceptance with proof of service, “[t]he clerk must then enter

3

judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) (emphasis added). Except under extremely limited

4

circumstances, “the court has no choice about entering the agreed judgment.” 12 Fed. Prac. &

5

Proc. Civ. § 3005 (2d ed.).

6

Defendant argues, however, that since payment has been made in full before a judgment

7

was entered, the Court should enter a satisfaction of offer of judgment and an order of dismissal

8

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). (Dkt. No. 49 at 1.) However, “relief under

9

Rule 60(b) is not readily justified, particularly with judgments based on Rule 68. . . . [P]laintiff

10

should be assured that its acceptance will lead to judgment; in all but the most extraordinary

11

circumstances mistakes should not affect this result.” 12 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 3005.2 (2d

12

ed.). Here, Defendant has made no compelling arguments why judgment should not be entered in

13

Plaintiff’s favor. Moreover, Rule 68 is clear that when all the requirements have been met, as is

14

the case here, judgment must be entered. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion (Dkt.

15

No. 49) is DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

16

DATED this 9th day of August 2017.

A

17
18
19

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 2